Do universal human rights exist, and if so is it necessary to justify them philosophically?

There are, without a doubt, universal human rights. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents a broad consensus on this. In fact, one of the projects I have recently undertaken is to consider and analyze widely held principles of international human rights law.

To the second part of the question, my answer is partially affirmative. There is no doubt that philosophy and philosophers have contributed deeply to the content and nature of human rights. At the same time, however, my studies of the practice of human rights law indicate that rights involve much more than just theory; they entail a process involving grievances, the articulation of claims based on those grievances, followed by political negotiations, the recognition of rights, and the battle for the implementation of those rights.

There are those who say that economic, social, and cultural rights are not human rights because they are not philosophically grounded. I would reply to them that it is critical to bear in mind that past codification of rights—including the Magna Carta, the English Declaration of Rights, the French and US declarations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—were all results of political processes. In this sense, while philosophers are relevant, they are not decisive.

From what international actors and intellectual circles do the most serious challenges to human rights come?

At a formal level, there is no real challenge to human rights today. What do I mean by that? I am struck that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, while mired in many problems, has successfully held a one-week high-level summit at the beginning of its session for the last two years. During this conference, high-level personalities from about 80 to 100 countries come to explain their actions with reference to human rights. In this sense, whatever other faults the commission has, it provides a forum for leaders of countries who come to the United Nations to be held accountable in terms of human rights—and I am not aware of anyone challenging this.

A crying Rwandan child in a refugee camp in Ruhango, 50 kilometers from the Rwandan capital of Kigali, attests to the horror of the genocide which claimed the lives of his two innocent parents.

The more powerful challenges to human rights come first from global poverty and second from internal conflicts. Currently, I do not think that we are seeing religious or cultural challenges to human rights, but rather challenges that are economically or politically rooted. It is these challenges, in turn, that sometimes produce cultural and religious tensions.

Under what circumstances might a government be justified in violating human rights?

The general answer is that, especially in today’s world, we must be very careful when we make for such allowances. As the Acting High Commissioner of Human Rights, I issued a statement asserting that, “ours is a world in which human rights are affected by poverty, conflicts, equality, and gender discrimination, and state violence against its own citizens.” Because we are dealing in a world plagued with such problems, I think it is important as a matter of principle to hold fast to the human rights norms when possible. In all other cases, however, we must look to the answers given in international human rights law.

International human rights law says that there are, in fact, a few limited situations in which states may derogate from human rights. Article 4 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights states that human rights norms may be curtailed if the life of a nation is threatened or if there is a public emergency affecting the life of a nation. Moreover, there are grounds of limitation specified for the definitions of the rights themselves. In this regard, therefore, many conditions must be met before a human rights violation is deemed acceptable: there must be an emergency that affects the life of a nation, the existence of the emergency must be officially proclaimed, and the measures taken must be proportional to the emergency.

In the last decade, what have been the most important developments in the law and practice of international human rights?

The biggest developments in the international human rights field have been the establishment first of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in 1993 and second of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998. Whatever debates there are about the ICC, its establishment and existence sends a powerful message to those who have committed or are tempted to commit criminal violations of human rights that they could have gotten away with before the ICC.

One element that is important to the development of international human rights law is an increasing effort within the United Nations to enhance national protection systems. I have participated in this effort, and I believe that it needs to be done through international law.

A national protection system takes into account six questions. First, is your constitution in conformity with international human rights law? Second, are your laws in conformity with international human rights law? Third, can your courts draw on human rights standards? Fourth, are you teaching human rights in schools? Fifth, do you have institutions like national human rights commissions? And sixth, are you monitoring the state of human rights in your country?

I think that this concept of the national protection system is strategically sound. I was part of the process of bringing this to center stage, but there is not much that has happened by way of action. I think that the power of the concept is that it is based on international norms. We must now seek to build stronger national protection at home in every country.

On that note, are human rights better preserved and promoted through the legal doctrine of institutions like the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or through legislative processes like those of the United Nations and domestic governments?

We need a combination of these things. First of all, what I would call a “culture of human rights” is vital, and I therefore want to stress the importance of human rights education. Last year, I completed a mission in 16 Central Asian countries during which it became clear to me that however poor a country, whatever difficulties a country may have, attaching importance to human rights education can really help to take the cause of human rights forward.